Vehicular model or Ped model?

Say the governor's office contacts you and asks you the following question:

We are looking into revising the law with respect to motorist and cyclist behavior at intersections with bike lanes. What do you recommend?

At an intersection where the rightmost/outside lane can be used for straight or right destination, and there is a bike lane painted to the right of it:

1) Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
2) Use the "pedestrian model" (OR and AZ use now): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
3) At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
4) At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
5) End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
6) End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
7) Other (please specify)

Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.

Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.

Well, if the bike lanes all end prior to the intersection, then the law is moot. I wanted to give that as an option for a recommendation.

The laws in (1) and (2) are assumed to apply at any intersection where a right turn is authorized, so that would include driveways.

Where the terms "minor intersection" or "all intersections" are used, driveways are included.

I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*

I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*

I think the reason it feels right to have turning motorists yield to through traffic to their right is because this "feels" familiar. In fact, this is the situation for pedestrians who are walking straight into a crosswalk from a sidewalk while right-turners to their left, who also have a green, must turn right across their paths. This is why it feels familar.

But the dynamics are totally different when it involves bicyclists in the bike lane rather than peds on the sidewalk. Here are the reasons:

The pedestrian is relatively static (relative to the moving motorist). When a motorist looks, where a pedestrian is or isn't is not going to change much over the next few seconds. If the corner is empty a second before the motorist gets to the intersection, there is not going to be a pedestrian there a second later when the motorist is turning right (barring situations where there particularly bad obstructions). The cyclist is not relatively static: at 15 mph a cyclist covers 22 feet per second. Right turning motorists are usually moving significantly slower than 15 mph the last few seconds before turning right.

The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be unexpected.

The pedestrian can basically stop instantaneously, and move laterally very quickly. The cyclist cannot stop nearly as quickly and is unable to move laterally without also moving forward.

"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

Bike lanes in the center of the road. Auto traffic to the right. At lighted intersections, the sequence for green lights would be bikes and pedestrians, left-turning autos, straight travelling autos. 400 pound weight limit on cars. Compressed air every 3 miles.

I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200í before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.

The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.

... but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections. ...

The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.

The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.

I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.

The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Donít call me unduly restrictive.

Iíll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.

The fact that I referred to 50 and 100 foot distances as more precise doesn't mean that I prefer them. I only mean that they had a lesser range.

2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.

That would not seem the case if a bike lane were there. If a bike lane were there, then the motorist should expect a cyclist to be in it, especially if he just passed the cyclist 10 seconds ago.

This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.

If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.

So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.

This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.

Knowing the law does change motorist attitudes
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.
So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.

But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.
So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road? Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire. Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.

One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.

I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.